1. Government investing in social capital: Some dilemmas in The Netherlands Tenth Anniversary Forum of the CIIF Hong Kong, 23 November 2012 Paul Dekker Tilburg University & The Netherlands Institute for Social Research | SCP

2. Outline 1.Social capital: a crash course 2.Dutch policies regarding social capital 3.Dilemma 1: Bonding or bridging? (multicultural society) 4.Dilemma 2: Barbeques or bricks? (neigbourhood development) 5.Dilemma 3: Big society or ‘ppp’? (civil society) 6.Conclusions: Back to the ‘civic community’ & practical issues

3. 1. Social capital 1.Earlier authors, but interest in 1990s: o Sociology: Externalities o Economics: Social aspects, culture o Political science: Networks o Politics: New brighter view on cohesion – investment perspective 2.But different conceptualisations: Individual / micro / functional versus Collective / macro / normative 3.My starting point is political science/normative: Robert Putnam

4. Robert Putnam

5. Civic community → Social capital Civic community = ‘… active participation in public affairs … pursuing “self-interest properly understood” … interact as equals … helpful, respectful, trustful … strong views on public issues, but they are tolerant of their opponents … a sense of shared responsibility for collective endeavors.’ (1993: 87-90) Social capital ‘… refers to features of social organization, such as trust, norms, and networks, that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions’ (1993: 167) ‘… refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them’ (2000: 19). From ‘generally speaking, serve civic ends’ (1993) to something that ‘just like any form of capital’ can be used in a pleasant and an unpleasant way (2000).

6. Sources, mechanisms and outcomes Source: Ruuskanen (2001) www.stat.fi/tup/sospo /kasite_en.html

7. Three basic forms 1.Bonding: (‘strong’) ties in informal sphere, immediate life; with similar people, sharing identities, in-group 2.Bridging: (‘weak’) ties people who are not close, in the civic realm, between groups and communities 3.Linking: ties connecting individuals and groups to people or groups in position of political or financial power

8. 2. Dutch policies Similar concepts:  Social cohesion  Social/cultural integration  Empowerment  Citizenship  Caring society  Responsible society  Big society

9. 3. Bonding or bridging? Ideals/policies regarding immigration:  Multicultural society: positive about group identities, categorical policies, public support for migrant groups →  Integration (assimilation?): Dutch values, minimal standards, courses and exams for ‘Inburgering’ (= making citizens) →  Citizenship?: Colour blind, focus on individual rights and duties

10. Social capital Studies about importance of (family) ties for migrants; positive role of migrant organisations for political involvement; differences between Moroccan, Turkish and Chinese communities Projects to empower Muslim women, activities for young people, homework classes, mentorships Disputes: No hard evaluation studies / ideological debates about the risks of bonding capital

11. 4. Barbeques or bricks? How to improve / upgrade a poor (multicultural) urban district?

12. Evaluations of neigbourhood policies  Social capital is an important concept in this field  No or only weak ‘effects’ of soft social capital interventions on hard measures (education, employment etc.)  Building new houses is more effective ... but expect no spontaneous mixture of old poor and new rich inhabitants  Create hard common interests: Schools and other facilities, not bbq’s

13. Other social capital findings  Multicultural society: Ambivalent findings as regard the decline of trust and social capital in diverse areas  Benefits for care: NO positive relationships between neighbourhood involvement and informal care  Benefits for health: Positive ‘effects’ of contacts/sociable atmosphere of neighbourhood on happiness and health of inhabitants

14. 5. Big society or hybrids?  Long tradition of ‘community development’ (rural and urban areas): empowerment, cohesion  Crisis of the welfare state: budget cuts  No defence: no evidence for positive results and some evidence for making people dependent on state subsidies  In recent years: ‘responsabilization’ of citizens & ‘big society’ = civil society without state support

15. Research findings  Viable and sustainable citizens’ initiatives are facilitated by government  Citizens reluctant: (local) government is needed to decide and as an arbiter (low trust in other citizens?)  Involvement of government: Risks of ‘crowding out’ smaller than chances of ‘crowding in’  Tradition of subsidized private action: → ‘public-private partnershop (‘ppp’)

16. 6. Conclusions  Social capital is a metaphor: Useful to focus on social relations, values and culture, but not an operational target  Be normative: It is not just about trust and cooperation, but about good trust and cooperation → from social capital back to the civic community  Be specific, but do not ignore ‘vague’ social capital by-effects.  Go on to evaluate projects: The Netherlands can learn from HK!